dismissed L-1A Case: Florescent Lighting

r~~data de1e1lJdto
preventcl~dy unwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOP'"Y
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
.20 Mass. Ave.,N.W., Rrn, 3000
Washington , DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
. and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 07 070 50675 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 042001
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10I (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I 101(a)(l5)(L)
IN BEHALF OF BENEFICIARY:
INSTRUCTIONS :
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents h~ve been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
R~et
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 07 070 50675
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) and 8 C.FR § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
The petitioner is a Nevada limited liability company and is allegedly in the florescent lighting business .I The
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its marketing director as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany
transferee 'pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.c. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the 'complete appeal within 30 days after
service ofthe decision , or, in accordance with 8 C.FR § 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director dated March 27, 2007 .was sent directly to the
petitioner. An appeal was filed with the Vermont Service Center on Wednesday, May 9, 2007, 43 days after the
decision was served by first class mail. ' .,'
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R . §
103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l)?
Likewise, the Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative in the record was signed by the ·
beneficiary, not by an authorized representative of the petitioner and not on behalf of the petitioner.'
Therefore, the attorney identified in the Form G-28 is counsel to the beneficiary, not counsel to the petitioner.
The Form I-290B that was submitted in.response to the March 27, 2007 decision was signed and filed by the
attorneyidentified in the above Form G-28 on behalf of the beneficiary.
Citizenship and .Immigration Services (CIS) regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary of a visa petition,
or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf,from filing a petition ; the beneficiary of a visa petition is
'It is noted for the record that, according to the records of the Nevada Department of State , the petitioner's
correct company name is "
,Z Itis noted that the Vermont Service Center initially received the instant appeal on April 27, 2007. However,
because the Form I-290B was not properly signed, the filing was rejected. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §
103.2(a)(1) requires that all documents submitted to a service center be executed and filed in accordance with the
instructions on the form. Further, 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7) provides that "[a]n application or petition which is not
properly signed ... shall be rejected as improperly filed" and that "[r]ejected applications and petitions . .'. will
not retain a filing date." Therefore, the attempt to file an appeal with an unsigned I-290B on April 27, 2007 did
. . ~
hot extend the time to file a properly executed appeal beyond the 33 day.
3Although it is noted that an individual named _ also signed the Form G-28 , it is in the matter
disclosure section and fails to act as a consent to the representation of the petitioner, whose name does not
appear on this document.
EAC 07 070 50675
Page 3
not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary and his representative are
not recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B).
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will also be rejected for this reason. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l).
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the' case.
However, the instant untimely appeal shall not be treated as a motion by the Vermont Service Center. As noted
above, the instant appeal is being rejected as being both untimely and as being filed by a representative of the
beneficiary. As the beneficiary's counsel is not permitted to file an appeal or a motion, the VermontService
Center should not consider the untimely appeal as a motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(iii)(A). 4
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.
"Finally, counsel to the beneficiary asserts the following in the Form 1-290B: "Due to translations, service did
not understand documents and their relationship thereto." Counsel also notes that a brief and/or evidence
would be sent to the AAO -within 30 days. However, as of the date of this decision, a brief or 'additional
evidence has not been received. Therefore, as 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires the AAO to summarily
dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or
statement of fact, the AAO would be obligated to summarily dismiss the current appeal if the appeal were not
being rejected. No erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact was identified for the appeal.